Messages

31

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for three weeks in the Middle East

« on: December 11, 2012, 01:28:39 AM »

Roman (sootzzs), I promised you my itinerary.
It appears I'll be in Israel for a total of seven, almost eight, days. I know I'll only get a small taste of your country, but hopefully I'll see enough to leave with many fond memories.
Arriving from Jordan, I cross the river and head to Tel Aviv, where I spend the first night. The next morning, I follow the Mediterranean coast north to Caesarea, where I'll see the Amphitheatre and Aqueduct. From there, I travel to Megiddo, on to Nazareth, then staying two evenings along the Sea of Galilee. I visit Dan and Capernaum, as well as a kibbutz (also in the north), then a day cruise on Galilee. I spend a day following the Jordan River down to the Dead Sea. A night there, before visiting Masada, then take in Qumran Caves. The next four days will be based in Jerusalem.
I don't know much time, if at all, I'll be in Haifa. One of the things I would most like to see would be sailing, especially small boat racing, on the Mediterranean. 

32

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for three weeks in the Middle East

« on: December 11, 2012, 12:44:10 AM »

Paul and Expat, I thank you for your concerns about the weight. But, I've been working out the past few weeks    and the effort is starting to pay off.
I guess most would think I'm overdoing it with all I'm taking, but this is a very typical set-up for me. As I said, it probably weighs no more than 35 pounds, and it 's not unusual for me to take this much on a hike for several hours, or cycling thirty, forty, fifty or more miles.
I'd love to pare this down some more, but I certainly can't see doing without both a 1DX and a 1DS. I've come not to trust anything else. And, I still feel the need of a third as back-up, though I MIGHT concede a 7D over a second 1DS. I'm very happy with my lens choices, and it will take a stronger man than I to pry that 300 from me. If I could squeeze in one more piece of glass, the suggestion of something fast sounds most appealing.
Surprisingly, all this concern about weight and many of you recommend a tripod. I take one, too, except I just don't know where I'd carry it. I can live without a flash, and, if I take the 7D, I'd have one built in, which would work in a pinch. It seems not many care for my taking a monopod, but I've captured many a shot with my 300 at shutter speeds of 1/60 and even 1/30. The table tripod appears to be a no-brainer, as it takes up little space and weighs even less.
I often flown with this pack and it's seldom been a big deal. All-up my kit AND me check in at 220 pounds, an even 100 kg. Far more a problem on these flights for me (at 6'3) is insufficient legroom.

33

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D vs 5Dii - The End of an Era?

« on: December 10, 2012, 02:35:22 PM »

Yeah, my big question is more about build quality than anything else. The 5DmkII is a tank and has held up pretty reliably in the field. The 6D seems to be Rebelized a bit in that regard. IQ for both are likely a wash. If you can't take good images with one, you won't be able to get good images with the other. They will likely be sunsetting the 5DmkII, but it's too bad they can't keep it around with a 'legacy' or 'classic' moniker of some kind.

I wouldn't call the 5DII exactly a tank. I work on the water over 100 days a years and I need something that's quite well weather-sealed. I use 1DS and 1D bodies for almost everything, and, although I have a 5DII, after my first experience with it, I've learned that some pieces of gear need to be left ashore. Even my 7D, which supposedly is the best-sealed other than the 1D series, has broken down on two occasions in little more than six months of use.
I would suspect with the 6D certain economies have been made, and that the build quality at best would be no more than that of the 5DII. 

34

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for three weeks in the Middle East

« on: December 09, 2012, 01:43:45 PM »

How I see it is that everything I take needs to either fit in or hang from the bag, or around my neck. That probably rules out a full-size tripod. On past trips, I've carried a smaller one around, which seemed too much a compromise, taking up much-needed space in my pack and still too small for eye-level shots.
The 1DS III is my workhorse, I've put a lot of miles on them over the last four, nearly five, years. In most all situations, the results are equal to the 1DX.  It's the 7D that I would likely leave behind for a second 1DS.
I'd like to think I'll find uses for the reflector, even if it will only add a touch of light to a small space, say, five to ten feet away. It does fit in my bag, so long as I don't carry the laptop with me.
One more thing I plan to take is a hand-held light meter. I know it seems redundant in this day of more sophisticated technology, but I've found it most valuable in getting that shot in a confusing mix of light, especially if I use my 7D for flash. 

35

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for three weeks in the Middle East

« on: December 09, 2012, 12:19:51 PM »

Standard, I agree about the flash, since I learned most of my skills from a bunch of existing light enthusiasts. And, given today's technology (the 1DX is awesome), I don't think I'll have any trouble with anything up to about ISO 6400.
I haven't yet heard any comments yet about my carrying along a small reflector. If I can fit it in my bag, I probably will, as it can make light a little more available.

36

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for three weeks in the Middle East

« on: December 09, 2012, 11:10:39 AM »

A 300 2.8 with Tele is going to suck. You might as well take the 100-400L, lighter, more versatile. It's not like these places lack sunlight.

No offense, but I think the 100-400 would literally suck!  I'll be in desert regions where that push-pull zoom and lack of weather sealing will draw in a lot of dust!

And, to the rest of you, thanks for some great suggestions. You've gotten me to rethink what I need to bring. I mentioned the particular equipment because it's what I already own. While I could buy, rent or borrow other gear, I'd want to make sure the cost outweighs the benefits. And, as I'm most familiar with it, I tend to see things a certain way.
I don't think there's any way I can work without two bodies, generally one wide, the other long. I'd worry more about the risk of losing or damaging gear if I was continually changing lenses, as well as dealing with the near-constant dust. Sure the 300 is large and somewhat heavy, but it has been the one lens to count on to give me those killer shots.  But, I don't have a problem trekking about all day with this. That is so long as I keep moving, although I might get rather unpleasant standing in long tourist lines.
Wish I could take a tripod, but I don't see how I can fit it in, especially when I'll be in some situations where I'll have to carry everything with me, with no trips back to the car or bus. And, yes, a 1.4 lens would be so nice. Since I'm not so "normal", it woul be a tough choice between the 24 and 35.

To sootzzs, thanks for your most helpful offer. I'll try to get back to you in the next day with my itinerary. If not, please remind me.

37

Lenses / Re: 300MM lens advice

« on: December 09, 2012, 03:58:42 AM »

Consider me another who's firmly in the Canon 300/2.8 L camp.
In the last 20 years I've owned two of them and they've never disappointed me. Well, except for the time the first one swallowed too much sea water!
And, my second one is just so incredibly sharp, even though I've worn most all the paint off it  , I haven't seriously considered getting the II version.
In those same 20 years, I must have owned six or seven of the 70-200's (either the 2.8 or 4, IS or non-IS) along with three of its predecessor 80-200. It hasn't been until I got the latest 70-200/2.8 IS II, that I've found a lens that comes close to the performance of this amazing one.

38

Lenses / Recommendations for three weeks in the Middle East

« on: December 09, 2012, 03:21:45 AM »

I'm heading off to the Middle East (Egypt, Jordan and Israel) for three weeks, partly as vacation, but likely ninety percent for work (mostly editorial print clients).
While I'll spend most of my time traveling independently, there will be days when I'm with a group, so I'll need to keep what I carry to a manageable size and weight. The vast majority of what I'll be shooting will be outdoors, from dawn until after dusk.
My plan is to take three cameras (1DX and 1DS bodies, or perhaps a 7D as backup), four lenses, the 16-35 (II), 24-105, 70-200/2.8 (II), the 300/2.8, along with a 1.4 teleconverter. I'll carry this in a large backpack which I'll wear nearly all the time. In it I'll have my CF cards, a cable release, table tripod, perhaps an extra battery, as well as two or three spare UV filters.
Instead of a full-size tripod, I plan on taking a monopod (besides, it will likely serve as a hiking stick on the rough terrain I'll encounter). A laptop, two external hard drives, chargers and power cords will be carried separately.
I'll likely work wearing two bodies around my neck, typically one with the wide zoom, the other having the long, although I'm sure at times the 300 (without or with the 1.4 x) will be the lens of choice. I'm thinking the 24-105  will be the least used. I'm not much of a normal lens user, and I'm only carrying this to fill a gap.
Now, I'm wondering what I might be missing. I don't have any glass faster than f:2.8, but figure that, between the high ISO capability of the 1DX, my table and mono pods, as well as IS, I'll be fine for most anything I should encounter. And, other than the one on the 7D, I don't plan on taking a flash (and may not even use that). But, I am considering a folding reflector if I can fit it in the pack.
I'm fit and a pretty fair hiker, so carrying the 35 or so pounds won't be the issue nearly as much as space and convenience. What would be your suggestions I add or ditch?

39

Lenses / Re: X-mas: 16-35mm 2.8 ii vs. canon 50mm 1.2

« on: November 19, 2012, 01:03:16 AM »

SJT, I have photographed sailing professionally since my early twenties, so hopefully what has served me well will work for you. While shooting boat-to-boat I'll use the 70-200 and 300 as my standard lenses and often work with longer ones, what I find I need for onboard shots is almost always wide. I think you'll find the 16-35 a perfect fit most all the time and the 50 will be too tight.

I've attached the following pictures, both taken with this lens. To give you a better sense of scale, the boats are, respectively, 44 and 35 feet in length.

40

Lenses / Re: X-mas: 16-35mm 2.8 ii vs. canon 50mm 1.2

« on: November 18, 2012, 10:39:16 AM »

I think this is a question best answered by you. It's mostly a matter of which lens you'd find more useful, and what can't be done well with the equipment you already have. You didn't say whether you have a full-frame or crop sensor camera, but I'm assuming FF, since the 16-35 is much less useful on a crop and there are lenses better-suited for less money.
You mentioned that your favorite subjects are landscapes, portraits and sports. What is it you do more of, and in what kind of situations do you find your current set-up most lacking? If you find yourself wanting something wider for sweeping views, I'd recommend the 16-35. On the other hand, if you'd rather have fast glass for low-light conditions and indoor sports, I'd say get the 1.2.
If I knew what you already own, I might be able to make a better call. What is your favorite lens now? And, is there something you have that you'd like to replace? Perhaps, if you can answer those two questions, you'll have your answer.

If it were up to me, I'd definitely get the 16-35. But, then again, I already have one.

41

Animal Kingdom / Re: Kitty

« on: November 10, 2012, 11:30:40 PM »

My BFF (best feline friend), Socks, taken two days after I got him. Seems it didn't take him very long to make himself at home.

42

Lenses / Re: Help me spend a one-time windfall!

« on: October 20, 2012, 02:09:28 PM »

So, here are my questions:

1.   Should I spend half my funds on the upgrade to the Mark III? The images from the Mark II are lovely, and focusing speed or extreme low light hasn’t been my issue. I do find my images at 1600 ISO seem fairly noisy, but I don’t know whether the Mark III would be substantively better, often enough.
2.   What’s the best mix of overlapping zooms? The 75-300 that my wife and I have been sharing is convenient, so in some ways just replacing that with L glass seems like a good choice – in others, I wonder about a 70-200 and 100-400 combo. Or maybe a 70-200 and a 1.4x converter...)
3.   How much use will the Tilt/Shift get, really? (I know, that’s hard to quantify an answer)
4.   If I keep the 100 Macro, which I love, will I really need the 180 macro?

Thanks for reading what got much longer than I intended, and for advice and comments!

I'd definitely get the 5D Mark III (keep the 5D2 as backup), the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II. That pretty much uses up all the bonus, but you now have both a top-notch body and glass. Besides, can always sell off a few items you already have to get one or two others.

I think the 24 Tilt-Shift is a fantastic lens, but unless you plan to do architecture and interior photography you'll almost never use it's functions. I'm told the new 24-70 is just as sharp as the latest 24 TS, which is saying a great deal. Of course, if you need the shifts and tilts a lot (otherwise, you are probably better off renting for the few times you'd use it), this is what I'd get next, or perhaps get the 17 TS and sell your 17-40.

There's no question I would get rid of the 28-135, as well as the 200, since your 70-200 would make the latter redundant. Perhaps, the 35 should go as well, unless you want to use this in place of the 24-70 as a walkaround lens. Put the money towards 1.4  and 2x converters for the 70-200, or a tilt shift if that's your preference.

I'd talk you out of the 100-400. It's not that bad a lens, but it's been outclassed by more recent arrivals, especially with regard to autofocus and stabilization. And, at f:5.6, it's slow for so many situations. You're just as well off with the latest 2x converter on the 70-200, and if you don't need the full 400mm, get the 1.4x and you come out a step and stop ahead. I'd get both if it was in the budget.

43

Lenses / Re: Canon 300 2.8 (is)

« on: September 30, 2012, 03:43:48 PM »

Maybe I have an exceptional copy of the 300/2.8 L, that I haven't seen any benefit to upgrade to IS. Looking back, I recall that the first one I had was very good, though maybe not nearly this great. In the more than two decades I've used the two copies of this lens, I've gone through several 70-200s, a couple f:4 models as well as four f:2.8s, along with three of the old 80-200/2.8 "magic drainpipes". Only the latest Mark II version of the zoom can compare with my current, yet old, 300 in terms of overall IQ, both sharpness and "look".

If you find one anywhere near a performer as mine, at least if it's you can buy it for less than half the price of a new IS model, I think it's too good a deal to pass up.

44

Lenses / Re: Canon 300 2.8 (is)

« on: September 29, 2012, 11:22:02 AM »

I've had two 300/2.8 L lenses (non-IS) over the past twenty-one years. They've earned their place as my all-time favorite lens. You could say I've grown very attached to mine, though I suppose not as much as my 1DS (III), which, in terms of sharpness, contrast and "look" (in part, the bokeh), I must say is a most amamazing combination!
While I've used the IS version, I've never owned one, as it doesn't seem to give much if any improvement in my specialty. You see, I frequently shoot hand-held from moving boats and often the conditions are such that the motion is too great even for the stabilization. In times like that, one needs to rely on good technique. When that's not good enough, it becomes time to use a gyro.
This lens works well with teleconverters, especially the 1.4 x. I'll frequently attach one when I need some extra reach and I've found find there's minimal loss in IQ. The 2x is best reserved for those situations when you can't get any closer and absolutely need that larger image size, though the Mk III version I have now gives pretty good quality. It probably only disappoints because the lens by itself and with the 1.4 is so good.
In short, I have NO reservations about you getting one of these lenses, unless you HAVE to have IS. In terms of getting the most bang for your buck, this lens should be at the top of your list!

45

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 + 2x teleconverter vs 100-400

« on: August 27, 2012, 02:06:43 PM »

There are three versions of the 70-200mm f/2.8L, the answer is different for the different versions, but one answer is common, slow autofocus.  The IQ will vary from dismal to almost as good as the 100-400mmL depending on the version.
I think its a waste of money, you will spend $$$ on a TC that is a pain to mount and use, and then, it will only work with f/2.8 lenses and retain AF unless you have a 1 series body up thru the 1D MK IV.

I'll beg to differ.
I have both the II version of 70-200/2.8L IS and the 2x EF III. While I'll concede the autofocus speed slows down noticably with the converter on, given decent light, it's still usable for most situations. I'll grant that I don't have much experience with the 100-400, but the IQ, to me, appears almost as good to slightly better with the 70-200/2x combination. However, I found the older version of the IS model was much worse, while the non-IS lens fell somewhere in between.
With the MkII lens and the MkIII converter, I suppose it's a wash and you're paying considerably more money. But , if you planning on working much at 200mm and under, where you'd be using the 70-200 alone, there's absolutely no comparison. Likewise, if you seldom use lengths beyond 300mm, perhaps a better choice would be to get the 1.4x MkIII and cropping for the occasional long shot.
As far as the "pain to mount and use", I suppose you have to ask yourself whether you can spare the 5-10 seconds it will take to make the change.